This Court acknowledges that interpretations of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 510(3–a) have varied. Some courts have found that suspension must first be found permissive under the criteria enumerated in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 510(3) before temporarily suspending a license pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 510(3–a) ( see Lemyre v. Lippman, 57 Misc.2d 775, 777, 293 N.Y.S.2d 582 [Sup.Ct., Nassau County 1968];Lashway v. Hults, 36 Misc.2d 1012, 1015, 234 N.Y.S.2d 47 [Sup.Ct., Albany County 1962];Del Zio v. Chinman, 54 Misc.2d at 698, 283 N.Y.S.2d 333).
The Robertson court cited as justification for the suspension the fact that defendant had only recently completed a 60-day suspension of his license upon his conviction for operating a motor vehicle while his ability to operate was impaired by the consumption of alcohol (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192). Similarly, in De Vito v Aylward (supra), the court cited defendant's record of prior convictions showing "recent and persistent disregard for the traffic laws of the State" (Matter of De Vito v Aylward, supra, at 527; cf., Matter of Lemyre v Lippman, 57 Misc.2d 775 [temporary suspension annulled where all convictions were at least 15 years old]). By basing the suspensions, in part, on the defendants' prior driving records, both courts were, sub silentio, applying one of the statutory criteria for permissive suspension of a driver's license after a hearing.
Section 510 Veh. Traf. of the Vehicle and Traffic Law confers upon the City Judge (subd. 1) the discretion to suspend a driver's license temporarily without notice pending the prosecution (unlettered paragraph following paragraph [i] of subdivision 3). The statute is constitutional ( Matter of Herkel v. Kelly, 14 Misc.2d 966; see, also, Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33). Its authority is constitutionally exercised when the suspending court's discretion is based upon substantial evidence ( Robertson v. Tomson, 60 Misc.2d 275; Matter of Lemyre v. Lippman, 57 Misc.2d 775). Here the court had before it not only the narrative of the petitioner's actions leading to this charge but also the record of her prior convictions in that very court showing her recent and persistent disregard for the traffic laws of the State. The court acted with sound discretion.